Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 22 (PNJ)

Tripat Kaur v. Jamna Dass

2003-01-08

V.M.JAIN

body2003
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the landlady against the judgments passed by the courts below, whereby the ejectment petition filed by the landlady was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-landlady filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the respondent-tenant, seeking his ejectment from the residential house, inter alia on the ground that the building in question was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the demised premises were required by the petitioner-landlady for her own use and occupation. 3. The petition was contested by the respondent-tenant, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that in fact, he had taken the house in dispute on rent from Kartar Singh in the year 1973 and since then, Kartar Singh was issuing receipts to him and as such Kartar Singh was the landlord qua him. It was alleged that the building in question was in a fit condition and was fit for human habitation. It was alleged that the petitioner-landlady had no ground for personal necessity. 4. After hearing both the sides, the learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, inasmuch as Kartar Singh had given the house in question to the petitioner in a Civil Court decree and as such the petitioner, being the owner, was the landlord of the house in question and there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it was found by the Rent Controller that the landlord had failed to prove that the demised premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also held that the landlady failed to prove that she required the demised premises bona fide for personal use. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. 5. The appeal filed by the landlady was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the landlady filed the present revision petition in this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed. 5. The appeal filed by the landlady was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the landlady filed the present revision petition in this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlady submitted before me that from the evidence led by the parties, it was proved on the record that the building in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, keeping in view the report of the Local Commissioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner required the house in question bona fide for personal need, as her husband was in service and she required the premises for the education of her children. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. With regard to the condition of the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the landlady examined AW-2 - Amar Chand Goyal, "Engineer". He deposed that he had seen the disputed house on 29.8.1986. He stated that the condition of the rooms on the first and second floors was dilapidated. He stated that the premises had been recently white-washed and repaired. He further stated that the premises were not safe and fit for human habitation, inasmuch as the building was 50 or above years old. He proved his report Ex. A.2 and the site plan Ex. A.3. He further stated that he had passed Diploma in Civil Engineering in 1964 and did the graduation in Civil Engineering in 1972. During cross-examination, he stated that he had not mentioned the length and the breach of the cracks in the site plan Ex. A.3. He stated that he mentioned the directions of the cracks in his report but not in the site plan. He stated that age of the building can be made to look young by white- washing. He admitted that smoke could turn the colour of the wooden batons and planks as black. He admitted that the age of the building could vary either side by 10/15 years. He stated that there were only three cracks which he had noticed in the first room in the site plan Ex. A.3 and these were not through and through. He admitted that smoke could turn the colour of the wooden batons and planks as black. He admitted that the age of the building could vary either side by 10/15 years. He stated that there were only three cracks which he had noticed in the first room in the site plan Ex. A.3 and these were not through and through. He stated that actually there were cracks in the first room, but these had been repaired, but the impression of the cracks was still there. He stated that similar was the position in the second room. He stated that the building was still not sound even after the repair of the cracks. He stated that he had not mentioned regarding the foundation of the building in his report. He admitted that the roofs of the rooms had not sagged. He further stated that there was no crack shown in the site plan in the Chaubara except the two cracks towards south and west and he had not mentioned about the size of the same. He stated that these cracks were visible from outside the Chaubara, but not from the Chaubara. 9. To rebut this evidence led by the landlady, the respondent had examined RW-1 - Varinder Kumar Gupta, Building Expert. He deposed that he had inspected the building in dispute and had prepared the report Ex. R.1. He stated that in his opinion, the condition of the building is good and it is fit for human habitation. He stated that the normal age of such building, according to Dattas Book, was 100 years. During cross-examination, he deposed that in his report he had given the present age of the building as about 40 years. He stated that in his opinion, the age could vary from 5 to 10 years either way. He denied the suggestion that the condition of the building was very poor or that it was tried to be rectified by superficial repairs. He admitted that the entrance door of the Deodi had bricks arch. He stated that there were no cracks even diagonal and as such the question of filling the same recently did not arise. He denied the suggestion that there were cracks above the door opening towards the east. He stated that the southern wall of the stairs was newly constructed. He stated that there were no cracks even diagonal and as such the question of filling the same recently did not arise. He denied the suggestion that there were cracks above the door opening towards the east. He stated that the southern wall of the stairs was newly constructed. He stated that no signs of fresh repairs of cracks were visible over the door opening. He further stated that filling the cracks were visible over the door (sic). He denied the suggestion that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 10. After going through the oral testimony of these witnesses, and going through the reports given by them after inspection and in view of the findings of the courts below, in my opinion, it could not be said that the building in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, which may entitle the landlady to get the same vacated on that ground. Both the courts below had come to this conclusion after considering the entire evidence led by the parties, including the reports of the Building Experts and their oral evidence in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the courts below in this regard. 11. Accordingly, while affirming the findings of the courts below, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove that the building in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 12. Coming to the question regarding personal necessity, in the ejectment petition filed by the landlady on 18.12.1985, it was alleged that the demised house was required by her for her own occupation along with her family members. It was alleged that she was presently residing in the house of her in-laws at Moga, while her husband was employed as an overseer at Barnala. It was alleged that relations between the petitioner and her mother-in-law were highly strained and she was insisting upon the petitioner to leave the house at Moga and shift to her own house at Bhatinda. When Smt. Tripat Kaur, the petitioner-landlady, appeared in the witness-box as AW-3, she stated that her relations with her mother-in-law were strained and she wanted her to separate herself from her. When Smt. Tripat Kaur, the petitioner-landlady, appeared in the witness-box as AW-3, she stated that her relations with her mother-in-law were strained and she wanted her to separate herself from her. She stated that she could not live with her husband at Barnala because that will affect the education of her children and as such she decided to settle herself at Bhatinda. She stated that she will get her children educated at Bhatinda. During cross-examination, she stated that she was married in March, 1981. She stated that presently, she was residing along with her children at Moga along with her father-in-law mother-in-law and none else. She stated that her husband was posted at Moga at the time of marriage and was transferred from Moga about 2 years ago. (This statement was recorded on 20.1.1987). She stated that her husband had not taken any house in Barnala and was residing with his sister. She stated that her children were studying in ordinary school. She admitted that there were ordinary schools in Barnala also. She stated that if she would be residing at Bhatinda, she will be residing separately from her husband, but he would come to her on holidays. She denied the suggestion that she did not want to settle at Bhatinda or that the ejectment petition has been filed only to seek eviction of the tenant. 13. From the evidence of AW-3 - Tripat Kaur, the landlady, it is clear that she was married in March, 1981. She filed the ejectment petition on 18.12.1985 i.e. just after 4/1-2 years of her marriage. At that stage, the age of the children of the landlady would be less than 4 years. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to believe that the landlady wanted to live at Bhatinda only for the education of her children, who were definitely less than 4 years of age at the time when she filed the ejectment petition. Admittedly, she is residing at Moga along with her father-in-law and mother-in-law. According to herself, her husband was posted at Barnala. If the landlady has to shift outside the in-laws house at Moga (as alleged by her), normally speaking, she has to live with her husband at Barnala along with her children. Considering the age of the children, it cannot be said that the landlady wanted to live at Bhatinda for the better education of her children. If the landlady has to shift outside the in-laws house at Moga (as alleged by her), normally speaking, she has to live with her husband at Barnala along with her children. Considering the age of the children, it cannot be said that the landlady wanted to live at Bhatinda for the better education of her children. This is especially so, when at the time when she appeared in the witness-box, her children were studying in ordinary schools as admitted by herself. 14. In my opinion, the plea taken by the petitioner-landlady that she required the house in question bona fide for her personal use, has rightly not been accepted by the courts below, especially when from the evidence led by the landlady, it is clear that she has failed to prove that she required the house in question bona fide for her personal need. The element of bona fide personal need is missing in this case. In my opinion, both the courts below had rightly found that the landlady had failed to prove the ground of ejectment against the tenant. Accordingly, while affirming the findings of the courts below, I hold that the landlady had failed to prove that she required the premises for her personal use. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.